Simon E. wrote:An attitude which as we have seen still maintains a firm grip on Buddhists.

Not this Buddhist. Actually I would argue not even Buddhists in general. The meditations on the repulsiveness of the human body found in Theravadra Canon texts has to do with breaking the extreme attachement to the "body as self" which is a characteristic of society both then and now. The Buddha preached against self-mortification, extreme purification rituals, etc... which were (and are) quite common amongst elements of the "Indian" religious community that did (and still do) hold a body negative view.

Well thats odd. I posted a quoted post from earlier in the discussion which illustrates perfectly the fact that the life negative attitides I alluded to are still prevalent, and I bumped it without comment, or editing, or highlighting,..... but it has disappeared. Which I guess is as eloquent a statement of the reality of the current situation as any.

Simon E. wrote:The existence of a body of thought within the Buddhist corpus which values the Feminine ( whether it values females is a separate issue, the evidence is that it sort of doesn't ) ) should not distract from the evidence that this body of thought has risen in response to the overwhelmingly life/body/sexuality- negative view predominate in most forms of Buddhist expression.

Staying on topic: has anyone come across a karmamudra text addressed to, or written from the perspective of, women?

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy

An old DW hand PM'd recently to say that a major problem on the forum is the proportion of posters whose grasp of English is nothing like as nuanced as they think it is.The result is a dialogue of the deaf, where both sides are actually discussing another issue entirely..

Lets try again.There is a lot of evidence that some forms of Buddhism claim to value the Feminine , while actually discriminating against flesh and blood females.Evidence ?...legion.Whether in the form of a recent major schism in the Theravada Sangha because women were ordained...because their place is cooking the rice.The use of and discarding of women in Karmamudra practice which has led and is still leading to law suites.The frequent references particularly in the Pali Canon to women's inferiority and the need to shun them.The virtual absence in traditional groups of female Tulkus..with a tiny few exceptions.Just to be clear I think the Tulku system is transparently a con...but it is nevertheless revealing.Even within the politics of local Buddhist groups in Europe and the U.S. women are still assigned certain roles, and sooner or later any young idealistic Buddhist woman will come smack up against the truth of the matter.This in part is due to the legacy of aversion to things of the body that Buddhism has recieved from its Subcontinental heritage. Its clear and undisguised in the Theravada. It can be more subtle elsewhere.

Simon E. wrote:... a major problem on the forum is the proportion of posters whose grasp of English is nothing like as nuanced as they think it is.The result is a dialogue of the deaf, where both sides are actually discussing another issue entirely..The use of and discarding of women in Karmamudra practice which has led and is still leading to law suites.

A law suite? Is that like the waiting room found at a legal firm? So much for a nuanced grasp of English!

I have visited several mosques and see no evidence of female power. One in India was especially terrifying and female companions were sexually assaulted, shoved around by men and had their heads forced onto metal bars. Nor did I see it in India in the forced marriages, or the daily 'kitchen fires' where brides who fail to toe the line accidentally set themselves on fire with kerosene. Nor did I see it in the fate of women being stoned to death, for example for having a boyfriend from the wrong sect etc etc.

Whatever the culture, whatever the religion, there is exploitation, often for sexual purposes.

You missed out the exploitation of young boys in monasteries, for example as 'consorts' for monks.

Back to the OP: Sex is not vulgar. Violence, exploitation and coercion is the problem. It is often a mixture of religious and secular influences and sometimes both combine to create a situation where people accept and even hide the harm.

Simon E. wrote:Meanwhile..whatever the spelling there have been, and are, a number of legal actions ( ok ? ) proceeding from women who claim to have been exploited sexually under the guise of Karmamudra.Fact.

Granted. Some women have been exploited under the pretense that they will be engaging in a spiritual practice. Does this mean that the practice itself is about exploitation? Sounds like I am the defending attorney in a legal soot, yes?

If you go to your nearest Theravada temple you will see see the male novice monks being fed before Nuns ( who are not really nuns ) of thirty years standing. Fact.

Again granted. Does the same rule apply regarding eating in the general population? ie Are you sure that is it a a religious thing or maybe it is also a culture thing?

If you google Ajahn Bramhavamso and Ordinations you will see that the said teacher has been expelled from the mainstream Theravada community because he ordained women. Fact.

True, but the argument had just as much do with official bhikksuni lineages as anything else.

If you visit your local Gompa/Vihara/Meditation centre you are highly likely to find the cooking cleaning, darning and sock washing done by women while men talk philosophy. Fact.

Not true. In the centres I go to there is either a roster or people work voluntarily. This, again, may just be the reflection of a phalocratic cultural setting.

Its endemic. Its deeply embedded. It comes ( or has done ) with the Buddhist territory.It stems from fear of sexuality.

Its endemic. Its deeply embedded. It comes ( or has done ) with the PHALOCRATIC territory.

Muslim women have far more power.

Yes and no. Depends which part of the Muslim world they are living in. Why? Cultural factors!

The heading is actually " Is sex considered vulgar to Buddhists ". If we assume that vulgarity is a problem, and if we see it as potentially obscuring our true nature then clearly for many Buddhists it IS problematic.A quick question or search on the issue through the pages of Dhamma Wheel will soon make that clear. So the question is perhaps does the Vajrayana or other forms of the Mahayana see sex as "vulgar ", and the answer is unclear.Even within the Mahayana including the Vajrayana there is a whole spectrum of views.One major difference in view is between modern western Buddhists and traditional far eastern Buddhists on this (and other ) issue/s.The time has perhaps come for a Fourth Turning Of The Wheel.

I think an empowerment may be useful before diving into Vajrayogini practices, as even reading them could give the wrong impression.

I think Wisdom has more to do with it than her displaying of 'the means of bliss'.

There are many powerful female figures in the Vajrayana, so I think there is some evidence of equality in the way they are regarded.

I haven't seen all female deities or male deites by any means, but Vajrayana monks do seem to like to portray the females with exposed genitalia and the males in the process of union with said genitalia. I haven't seen many male deities portayed on their own with exposed genitalia. Is that partly because of monastic fascination with the female form, perhaps?

It's also strange as Indian temples have images of males standing proud and cavorting with the females, in stark contrast to the repressiveness of much secular material. A land of contrasts but not necessarily of contradictions.

P.S. 'Vulgar' is sometimes interpreted as 'common' and so denoting an attitude of class or caste, something perhaps common folk talk about in public but classy people wouldn't. Either way, something to be looked down on.

Few things are as indicative of what the Anglo-Saxons called " Cuntfear" ....the fear of being unmanned by the feminine, than the of the need to see women as goddesses or symbols of personified powers.

Simon E. wrote:Few things are as indicative of what the Anglo-Saxons called " Cuntfear" ....the fear of being unmanned by the feminine, than the of the need to see women as goddesses or symbols of personified powers.

Really? And there I was thinking people may have been venerating females as symbols of fertility and creativity.